MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096385707 · doi:10.1037/xge0000990

Postural control of the vocal tract affects auditory speech perception.

2020· article· en· W3096385707 on OpenAlexfundno aff
H. Henny Yeung, Mark Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology General · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsVocal tractPerceptionAudiologyControl (management)PsychologySpeech perceptionSpeech recognitionMedicineComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many researchers have proposed that sensorimotor information about the dynamic production of speech gestures can supplement the auditory perception of speech. Here we show that information about postural, nonspeech control of the vocal tract-such as breathing through the nose or mouth-also affects speech perception. Experimental participants breathed either through the nose or the mouth while identifying categories of speech sounds differing in nasal versus oral airflow. Participants showed an increased tendency to hear speech sounds as having nasal articulation when breathing through the nose, relative to when breathing through the mouth. These results suggest that postural information about the state of the vocal tract, like the motor configuration of the speech articulators while breathing, can modulate the perceptual processing of speech sounds. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology GeneralSame topicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural CommunicationFrench-language works237,207